they will be more relevant to the people they are working with and they will make legal decision making part of operational planning rather than an afterthought. knowing how to ask the right questions and how to give actionable advice requires knowing, and i would argue working in, environments that require close cooperation. that is why our job is not to wait for legal questions to be brought to us or to provide advice on operational decisions after those decisions have been made. our job is to be present at the beginning and throughout the process. just like other senior national security official across the government, the person in my seat, since the creation of nsd, has attended the morning terrorism threat briefing along with the attorney-general and the director of the fbi.

just like the analysts and special agents who are working these issues, we aim to stay on top of the threat picture and to help devise tactics and strategies and tools for getting ahead of it. today its standard -- it is standard procedure for agents conducting counterterrorism investigations to consult throughout the process with attorneys and prosecutors in the national security division. that is to ensure that all potential avenues for destruction of a threat, intelligence gathering, investigation and prosecution are all preserved. if you asked me to break down how much intelligence versus how much law enforcement work we do, i would be hard pressed to give you an answer. we are almost always pursuing multiple tracks at the same time. we no longer have to across organizational lines to bring

tools and talent to bear against a particular threat or problem. for instance, our office lawyers in the office of intelligence work day in and day out with the intelligence community to secure authorities under the surveillance act. and to secure those authorities from the foreign intelligence securities court. they are also charged with conducting certain oversight of certain activities to ensure that the government's exercise of those authorities is balanced with the protection of individual privacy and civil liberties. the same attorneys work closely with our prosecutors to ensure that the foreign intelligence that is collected and obtained from fisa can be used to bring terrorists and spies to justice, all the while safeguarding sensitive national security information.

our office all law and policy plays a very important role, ensuring operators have the authority they need to keep the country safe. those attorneys are working with the financial action task force to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. they're building counter- terrorism capacity with our international partners and devising guidelines for sharing and collection within the executive branch. another part of the national security division has reviewers reviewing national security implications and potential vulnerabilities of certain foreign acquisitions of u.s. companies. this is just a sampling of the kind of things we do. it feeds a steady diet of work to our very talented team, but it all exists against a backdrop of an ever-evolving threat. i want to spend a minute talking about one of the most

significant issues we are facing today and that is the threat posed by cyber actors. in many ways, this threat is not new. the department of justice, through the computer crimes and intellectual property division, has considerable experience fighting cyber crime. we have experience dealing with those who seek to exploit cyberspace for malicious and is. in national security cyber threat picture has undergone a dramatic evolution in recent years. leaders in our national security community have discussed the threat we face and have forecasted that it will oppose the number one threat to our country in the not too distant future. it is critical that we apply what we have learned in the fight against terrorism, espionage, and cyber crime to cyber threats, to national security. law enforcement and other legal

tools are part of our toolbox. they are part of a whole government approach to defending against national security challenges. we have seen that they play an effective role and they can do so against terrorist threats. now we have got to train their attention on emerging cyber threats to national security. there are several challenges around the way -- along the way. the pervasiveness of cyber technologies and the rate at which they change increases our vulnerability to attack. technology can obscure a perpetrator's identity, wipe away digital footprints and leave a very lengthy investigative trail for investigators, analysts, and operators. depending on the circumstances, the purpose, or the endgame of a particular intrusion may be anyone's guess. is it espionage? is it theft, mere mischief, or an act of war?

in pursuing all of these avenues and these cases, just as in the counter-terrorism arena, we must weigh the value to be gained by continuing an intelligent investigation against the need to use law enforcement tools to disrupt our adversaries' activities and prevent damage to u.s. national interests. we have to do that just as we do in the counter-terrorism and counter-espionage arena. another challenge in this arena is that cyber intrusions may affect a wide variety of victims. all of them with different needs and interests. they may be private entities, some of your clients, to be sure. companies with shareholders, public reporting obligations, business reasons for wanting to address intrusions. successful collaboration with all of these interested victims and companies requires understanding the competing pressures that they face and the

legal obligations they may face. the good news is we have on our side a history of learning to counter new threats by marshaling our resources and working collaboratively to adapt. the work of my predecessors in the national security division is a testament to this. we are now building on those past successes, applying lessons learned in the counter-terrorism arena to the cyber realm. chief among those lessons is the importance of the integration i talked about and information sharing. with those goals in mind, we have created, in recent months, a nationwide network of national security cyber specialists. this network brings together the department's full range of expertise on national security- related cyber matters. it draws on experts from the national security division, the criminal division, and other

areas of the department. this network is modeled on existing initiatives and prior practice against terrorism and other threats. it is modeled on things like the anti-terrorism advisory council, which was created to address terrorist threats across the country and the computer hacking and intellectual property network, which targets computer crime and intellectual property. as in those efforts, each u.s. attorney's office has designated a point of contact for this network. the network, and we are calling it the national security cyber specialist network -- any ideas for other names are welcome. [laughter] the network is a one-stop shop for national security, cyber intrusion activity. we are working closely to bring our best resources to bear

against the threat. we are using it to do more outreach to the private sector and enhance our joint work with the fbi's national cyber investigative joint task force. we now have a dedicated lawyer sitting alongside agents and operators who are working this threat across the community. all of this is part and parcel of keeping pace with an evolving threat. just as we are evolving in the counter-terrorism arena to address increasingly diverse terrorist threats, we must likewise evolve our structures and operations and tools to meet evolving cyber threats to national security. we have got to do so with a commitment to privacy and civil liberties. the damage that could be caused by a cyber-enabled physical attack has potential to be dramatic. even if a catastrophic cyber event never materializes, there

is no doubt that we will face and that we are already facing the threat of a death by a thousand cuts. persisting, low-level cyber threats that steadily undermined our national security. and siphon off some of our most valuable resources, disrupting economic activity. even if the seriousness of the damage was not as considerable as many have estimated, the rate at which the cyber threat is increasing would be cause for alarm. i realize i am likely preaching to the choir here on cyber security and the priority for the aba and its president. the aba has assembled a cyber security legal task force and has charged it with examining ways to help lawyers protect their practices and their clients private information and potential property. nobody knows better than many of

you how important a role that lawyers play in safeguarding clients' information. in cyber security, your defenses are only as strong as their weakest link. this is the kind of attention that the cyber challenge demands. regardless of the size or shape of the cyber threats and the way they ultimately form and the direction they take, we need to be prepared before they materialize. while there is much we do not know about how cyber threats will affect us going forward, this much is clear -- we can dedicate efforts now to harden our defenses and lay the groundwork for working together effectively now and well into the future. so responding to cyber threats is most -- is both a challenge and a charge for us. the measures we take to respond to these threats must be sufficiently durable to stand the test of time and

sufficiently flexible to accommodate the changing threat picture. with the help of groups like the standing committee and the many thoughtful minds here this morning, i am hopeful that we are going to make good progress towards this goal. i want to thank you all for being here this morning and listening to me and for having me. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank-you, lisa. we have a few minutes before her staff puts me on the watch list, so we can take about two questions if anybody has a question. >> in the course of your remarks, you mentioned nsd's role as an oversight identity. those of us to have clients know the challenge of that duality. could you talk to us about how you balance both your role as an overseer for agencies like mind

but also as our advocate for other entities. >> as you and your lawyers know, we do play both roles. it is interesting. nsd does sit at this juncture. we are not formally of the intelligence community, not formally members of the intelligence community. i think that is the right balance, because we do play this dual role. we have got to make sure we are both earning the trust of the clients, the operators, the agents with homework, by being creative problem solvers, but also maintain the ability to keep that trust by being creative, by being -- bleeding and helping our clients work through operational issues. the lawyers who work in our office, we talk about how it is

important not to be dr. no, always saying no. in terms of a stoplight, you cannot be read all the time. that is a problem. you cannot be green, 8 yes person, captive to the cop -- captive to the client. worst of all worlds is to be flashing yellow, constantly on hold, constantly in limbo, waiting for that answer. we tried act much more as a navigational device, sitting alongside you, working with you, earning that trust, of being creative, helping you get to where you want to go, doing so in a way that will be consistent with statued executive order and the rule law. >> the drafting of the wmd commission report -- not everything we wanted worked out the way we expected. nsd worked out exactly as the

commissioners have hoped. it has been a major contribution to innovative lawyering and national security. i wanted to ask you about the cyber security crisis that we face. we do not have the resources in government to investigate every one of the intrusions against private industry. so the question is, how can -- at the same time, we know a lot about the guys breaking into our networks and dedicated attention to that will allow us to attribute these attacks and take action against the people who are doing it. how do you draw on and use the resources of the private sector? if ibm is intruded on, they will spend a lot of money to find out who is attacking them and where their data has gone. how do you use that without turning the internet into the wild west? >> you have been obviously a

very thoughtful in this area. one of my hopes is that the network will be a contributor to that relationship. it will be a place for not only prosecutors and agents in the field to plug in, but also to be a forum for interaction with the private sector, to be able to share information as much as we can in a way that can be helpful to the private sector. our goal is to make sure we have all the tools that we can apply to a particular problem and make sure we are preserving those options and working with interested parties to make sure we can do that. something like prosecution will not always be -- it will not be the silver bullet and it will not be applicable in all circumstances, but it may well be a viable option in some cases to act as a deterrent and a way to disrupt the threat. the more information sharing we can have and good relationships

we can have with the private sector so we can share what we can, understanding that that will not necessarily always be satisfactory, and similarly, the private sector can share with us information. we have to first know about the bridges and intrusions that occur before we can do anything about it. understand that that sometimes causes concerns for companies. if they trust that we are going to use that information wisely and try to help and work with them to combat this siphoning off, hopefully we will all be better off. >> thank you for graciously giving us your time this morning and sharing your thoughts. as a token of our appreciation, we want to give you a copy of our latest publication. paul, i am confident your ethics committee will find this of minimal value. [laughter] >> no comment.

[applause] >> thank you. >> that concludes our breakfast program. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> take a look at "washington journal" tomorrow morning. different looks on climate change and a recent report. our guests will be david doniger and myron ebell. we will talk about senators investigating cia sources and their role in that the movie " zero dark thirty." newthey look at the fda's food safety rules. all of that starting on 7:00 -- at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, a discussion of the role

of women in congress and how it could change the political environment. this is from today's "washington journal." host: joining us now is stephanie schriock. she is the president of emily's list. guest: this election was a mandate for women's leadership across the country. an historic number of women were sworn in it to congress last week. this election was also about women voters and women's issues, some of which i would prefer not having a debate about. we will see more and more women stepping up to run. host: 20 senators, 81 representatives in 2013. what issues to the brink when it comes to women's issues? guest: we have never had 20

women in the u.s. senate. it is a great benchmark to hit. i would like to see it at 50. we're adding diversity to the debate. we will end up with policies that are best for our committees. these women are bringing different perspectives on all sorts of issues including economics, education, the environment. i think you'll see a lot of different thoughts and ideas on how to get things done and how to find compromise. host: how does a play out with women in leadership roles?

guest: we have a new number of women serving on committees and shares. barbara mikulski is the first women's chair of the appropriations committee. how that will change, we will see. we have more and more -- patty murray, dianne feinstein. these are significant changes. very interesting on the house side. we have seven women ranking on major committees and the house. the house republicans have zero women cheering any major committees. they are all white men and have one woman chairing a minor committee and that is the administration committee.

we feel we are in a great place. froml see a lot of work emily's list to get the majority of back in the house. host: what role did your organization plate in the election of these women? guest: we are in it for the long haul. emily's list has been working with some women since they were in the state legislature, standing with them. we have a huge network and ask for financial support. emily's list raised and spent over $50 million to help elect this historic number of congress. host: here are the numbers.

202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. what is the standard emily's list applies in deciding who they will support? guest: we elect pro-choice democratic women. some of our democrats do not like that. we look at viability of a candidate.

we work closely with our women as they come up the ranks of running for office. we want to know they have the right stuff to put their campaigns together and to build coalitions and to win elections. we will help with that process. they have to prove themselves. still like some of our newest members of the house in hawaii and arizona, two young women -- there are three coming in at under 40 and they had to put together those campaigns. they proved themselves and we are proud to call them our candidates. host: a viewer from twitter asks -- guest: we have a not. we have supported democratic

women only. we felt we needed to work within the party structure when we started. no democratic woman had won a seat in her own right and that was in the 1980's until we got behind and supported barbara mikulski. we helped her win her first senate campaign. this continued growth in the house and senate. we didn't get to 16 democratic women in the senate by letting it happened. i hope the republican women will do the same. i think it is not the right direction for the country. host: is a candidate obligated to vote for issues you are passionate about?

guest: our mission is to win races. we are about changing the face of congress. we want to get these women in. we are about recruiting and training women and getting them ready to run for election. if an incumbent has a tough race, we will get behind them. we'll get policies that are more progressive. we need an equal number of women and men. we want to get the support around those women to win. host: the website is emilyslist.org. guest: people ask who is emily?

"early money is like yeast." caller: are women in congress limited to popular ideas or did they encourage such ideas -- replacing laborers with artificial intelligence like mechanical engineering and producing more, stuff like that. my wife has ideas like that. what is your stance? guest: wide open. by adding more diverse voices, we believe we will get a whole series of new ideas on a whole variety of topics.

you name it. there is a great story. she was in the senate and the military -- that would ask questions about mental health, how the troops are being prepared, what are we doing for the families when they are away? these are important questions. they are additional concerns that are brought in by the perspective of women. that is what we are talking about. host: ruth on our democratic line. caller: good morning, c-span. whether or not emily's list is

doing anything to support women of color? the senate has zero women of color. if they are promoting women of color. guest: you bet we are. we have so much to do on this fund, both women and men in the senate. we have supported the first asian american woman in the senate. she will be a great addition to the senate. we have had more success in the senate's. a new congresswoman from ohio. we have supported a number of women in california and new

mexico. our work is far from done. we are looking to expand our training program in all communities. this isn't just about having an equal number of women and men. it is also about bringing people of color to the table. host: on our republican line. caller: i have a comment. the problem we have -- people either ignore or do not want to recognize -- anytime we have a minority or a woman who is put into office and put into congress, if they are republican, they are always demonized.

in the case of minorities, black americans. they are not accepted. i do not understand why we cannot see it is not ethical for this country to stand by and watch one party demonize and the other accused them of not having minorities or blacks in congress. i would like her to explain why when you see this is a problem you will not stand by republican minorities and women in congress. thank you very much. guest: we talked about the need for increasing the number of women. to get to 50% of congress -- we

are 51% of the population -- we need to see more republican women do this. we chose to work in the democratic party. we felt we needed to make inroads in the democratic party. we're still looking at being 35% of these democratic caucuses. even in the caucuses, women are not 50%. i am concerned about how many republican women there are. the retirement of olympia snowe is upsetting because she was a great voice for compromise and discussion. we would not have supported her because of what the organization stands for. we're more supportive of --

your supportive of seeing women step up and run. they struggle to get those primaries. a lot of the republican women are more moderate and not conservative enough to get through these primaries. i feel this is something the republican party has to reach out to women and to get more women to run. host: new york on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i help campaign for elizabeth crowley. what would you want to go to this congress the outgoing congress woman who said she was resigning from congress because of the dysfunctional is some and partisanship.

hopelessly divided. this is a congress that has been bought out and sold by the lobbyists. 97% of the american people disapprove of their congress. how were these new members -- i hate to be cynical -- how are you going to be different? guest: it was so dysfunctional. we have to believe that as we change these bodies to look more like the country, they have to sit down and work things out.

too many of any one group, you have the same kind of thinking. that has to change. look at the fiscal cliff. there isn't an american that did know we were going to increase the taxes on the wealthy. i was in iowa with my family over christmas and everybody knew where we were going to end up. speaker boehner was more interested in it pounding his chest then getting the deal done. when we add more women and people of color to this debate, folks -- will get compromise to move this country forward. we have to do it by working

together and not running against each other every single day. campaigns are campaigns. when we get to the halls of congress, we have to govern. host: this line from bloomberg news goes like this -- host: would you join this criticism? guest: absolutely not. this to the first president who was gone two women on the supreme court. that is a generational change for that court.

he has an incredible cabinet. janet napolitano is still sitting. kathleen sebelius at health and human services. he did talk about putting susan rice as secretary of state. find that criticism of the president unfair. he is finding the best people for the job. there's a lot -- we work with a lot of great women. i see more and more of that. this president has been strong in bring people into the process. he has policies on that front. he said we will sign the lilly ledbetter fair pay act first. he does lead by action.

i think all three will be strong folks. you will see other people coming into this administration. host: this is sharon for stephanie schriock from emily's list. caller: good morning. you talked about the concerns i have. the woman look forward to helping some of the minorities in housekeeping, babysitting, where some of these people are not trying to pay them the right amount of salaries. i have a sister that will be getting more social security

when she worked for housekeeping back of the old days. she did not draw any social security. they did not pay in to her. one back to get the money from the children that are still alive. they said no way. i want to know what your opinion -- i know you talked about the lily ledbetter act. i hope women are paid the right salaries. guest: thank you for the comment. emily's list did a series of research to understand where independent voters were. these are not democrats or republicans.

we saw equal pay coming, up as one of the most important issues facing women today. they made it clear they wanted candidates who would support equal pay legislation. a republican party has stonewalled and refuse to talk about it and said they will get back on this issue. women are when making 77 cents to the dollar. that is bad for our economy and communities. we have to address this. this is a top priority. we have a number of senators leaving on this. it is critical. if we want to move this economy, this will put more money into the system.

we have to do this. well, that is an interesting point. for so long, women have been underpaid across the board. look at teachers or nurses are business folks. women are making 77 cents to the dollar. we have to address that. host: this is wanda. caller: congratulations on getting a record number of women elected to congress this year. i have a problem.

you have all these women elected. they are progressive. we're coming up -- against the debt ceiling. i'm getting ready to rip up my voter's card if the debt ceiling is raised without comparable spending cuts. the physical cliff was 41-1. i will not vote again in this country if it comes up to that. guest: do not give up on voting. that is one thing i beg you not to do. the debate over the first fiscal cliff, is something that this congress has set upon

themselves, these fiscal cliffs. i think there are some really good ideas and proposals by the president to make some significant cuts. democrats and republicans are going to sit down and try to find answers for our economic situation. we have to do it. the good news, i believe, is that we have a lot of new members. i'm proud to say we have a lot of new democratic women that will be in discussions, " like senator warren, tammy baldwin. it corrects and on the leadership side, who are the ones to watch as far as -- host: and on the leadership

side, who are the ones to watch? guest: we have a woman on the budget committee and of course, nancy pelosi on the house side. as you mentioned earlier, the new congressman from phoenix, ariz., when she was growing up, she lived in such poverty that her family lived in an abandoned gas station for two years with no electric anything. by the way, she is in her 30's. this was not 60 years ago. this was 30 years ago. these are some folks who have been through some life experiences. they know what people are going through. we've got to get some solutions and that means getting our

economic house in order and giving opportunity for folks to succeed in this country. host: in virginia, good morning. caller: good morning. i understand that your goal is to increase the number of women in government, but i have problems squaring up with not a a supporting republican women or women who are not pro-choice. are you queen makers? are you just there to raise a lot of money for a particular party? your comments say that you are setting the nation forward, which is almost an arrogant thing to say. guest: you've got to keep in mind where we have been and where we are going.

we have 20 women in the united states senate. we have 80 men. there are only 16 democratic women in the senate, and four republican. we have a long, long ways to go. the united states of america was 77th in the world in the percentage of elected women to office. we cannot as an organization take on the whole problem. we believe that we need more women. our piece of the puzzle is to elect pro-choice democratic women. the democratic party is for the most part pro-choice. the vast majority of the women we work with are pro choice anyway. as the organization, when we started women were not running. part of what we do is not so

much to choose them and make it happen, but we encourage women to step up and take this on. we need a lot more of that. we do not have enough women running for office in this country. host: why not the republican party? guest: it is not something that women think of doing right away. there is a study done by rutgers a couple of years ago that asks the question of all of these legislatures, women and men. how many times did you need to be asked before you ran? the women had to be asked seven times before they would say yes. and of the men cannot they did not really have to be passed -- and of the men, they did not really have to be asked. it is not a good or bad thing.

it is just the difference. part of our job is encouragement. we are here to say you can do this. it is not impossible. and we have an organization of support around you to take this step. host: richard is on our democrats line. caller: good morning. sheila bair, who leads the fdic and others, they warned the bankers and wall streeters that they were taking too much risk. naturally, they were not listened to. a bunch of white males. there is a difference between house, between men and women.

you are much more risk averse. you look at the picture, women do. you compromise. and in the business world, there are very few women who sit on the board of directors of these corporations. that is a glass ceiling that has not been broken yet. i would like your comments. guest: i'm glad you mentioned the corporate boardrooms. there is much research done about corporations. when they get three or more women on their boards, they actually see their profits increase. there is a liberal research that shows you do better when you have a closer to equal number of men and women at the table, not just in government but in corporations.

that makes sense to me. it seems logical to me. people think differently. not all women are the same and not all men are the same. but we all know that women and men are different. i think we need both views to move things forward, both in corporations, law firm partnerships. i would like to see women and there as well. and part of what we need to do is think about whether there are barriers for women to move into these corporals or into these law firms? do we have an education system supporting women in this process? it comes down to how we are supporting the family structure. that is often what it comes down to. and that is a question for more and more men today. you think about men who are on this partner track and women who are on this mommy track. i know more and more men who

want to go coach soccer at night. host: there is a story in psychology today in january talk about women voting and the psychology behind it. part of the information was the data behind the pilot test. guest: it is tough. we just did some research this post-election. there has always been a sense that women will vote for women. women will vote for women if they really see that woman in a way that she is accomplished, viable, and have the same belief system. it is more likely women will

vote for democrats first. and there is an 18-point gender gap in the presidential election. and it went to president obama. does it matter that we have women in there? why does it matter? and we ask the question, we just elected an historic number of democratic women. you think it will matter? and 56% of these independent and said yes. only 8% said no. that is a significant change. part of our job here at emily's list, and argue in government and politics, is to say it does matter. women's leadership is important for our society. that is part of what we're doing here. host: republican line in georgia.

caller: thank you for taking my call. the fellow from va a kind of stole my thunder. you keep presenting your position and the position of your firm as a woman's organization. in actuality, all it is is a democratic women's organization. since the other guy stole my thunder, i just wanted to make that point. i hope my friends and colleagues in the republican party are listening to how the democratic party and folks like yourself have done a fantastic job of packaging the little pieces of a voting bloc and appealing to certain people and basically saying, here is the only option that you really have. i think you have done a wonderful job of presenting your case. i hope that my republican brethren and sisters will get

together and create groups like yourselves. guest: i want to address one point there. the packaging of little groups. we talked to women in this country. women are 51% of the population. the last time i checked, that is the majority of the voters. and actually, women vote more than men anyway. we're talking about a huge majority of the population. granted, they are not all democrats. and i realize that. what we have seen at emily's list among independent women, two things. lookingthey're really

for candidates who understand their lives and you have the right priorities to move the country forward. and they are very opposed to candidates who want to roll the clock back, particularly on our rights and freedoms when it comes to access to health care or economic rights. that is one of the reasons we did so well this year with women in electing women. women want someone who is going to move this forward. that is a big part of what we're doing here. and what these independent women do not want are candidates who are going to roll the clock backwards. host: next caller. caller: i am an independent and an african-american male. i am concerned because i understand the struggle and

plight of women. i have never been chauvinistic with equality. but i also understand the backlash from the struggle of women trying to reach equality as people, regardless of gender. but i notice that has more women progress in the urban community, the more households are broken up. the more men that are in prison. women end up single parents, i would like to know your opinion about what solution we can offer to keep families together long term, despite our different plights in order to stay together. guest: we have seen a lot of changing in the last decades with women entering the

workforce. i will not pretend to have the answers to these questions, but i will say this, the women stepping up to run for office, these are women who have either come out of this environment, out of an urban center in particular. we have our own struggles in the rural parts of america. we need to bring these things to the discussion. that is what we need to do. i do not think we will find solutions to the questions that the caller had until we get those people living with the struggles of the table. that means more women, more african-americans, more hispanics, more men and women of color. i feel strongly that we need more women in this discussion. we're still sitting at 20% of congress. we have a long way to go. host: caller in richmond, democrats line.

caller: i was wondering how we will ever get equal pay when states like virginia have the right to work law and they can fire you for any reason. and the company i work for, if you discuss what you make to another employee, you can get fired. guest: it is about laws. laws are made by elected officials. who is representing us at the state legislature and in congress matters. we can overturn right to work laws. and we can pass it will pay laws. we need the right people to support these kinds of changes for our economic future. host: hillary clinton, if she decides to run for president, what does she have to consider in your opinion? guest: in my opinion, she's got to decide to run. she would be fantastic. she has been an incredible

secretary of state. the democratic party -- even in a poll earlier this week in a primary setting, already at 56% and the next person at 16%. it is really up to her to make a decision. i think she deserves all the time she needs to make it. if she makes the decision not to take it on, because she has given so much of her life to public service, and i'm sure she will continue in one way or another, i do think it is time to have a woman on the ticket in 2016. i think we will see really great women stepping up and running in 2016, 2020, and 2024. the bench is deep and growing. we have senators who right now, senator klobuchar from new hampshire. we have secretaries like kathleen sebelius, who was the governor of kansas, not an easy gig to get. and janet nepalitano,

previously the governor of arizona. both of them could step up and running for president. and that is before the next two years when we have 38 governorships up for reelection. that is the bench for 2016, we will have a lot the women stepping up for this. host: emilyslist.com. thank you for your time. >> tonight, a look at u.s. afghan relations. president karzai and president obama spoke at a joint news conference at the white house. following that are remarks at georgetown university. or not michael m -- michael mee se. now the news conference with

president obama and afghan president karzai at the white house. president karzai also met with defense secretary leon panetta and secretary of state hillary clinton. this is about wordy minutes. -- 40 minutes. >> it is my pleasure to welcome president karzai back to the white house as well as his delegation. we last saw each other during the nato summit in chicago, a city that reflects the friendship between our peoples, including many afghan-americans and the karzai family. mr. president, welcome. we meet at a critical moment. the 33,000 additional forces i ordered to afghanistan have

served with honor, they have completed their mission, and returned home this past fall. the transition is well underway, and soon nearly 90% of afghans will live in areas where afghan forces are in the lead for their own security. this year will mark another milestone. afghan forces will take the lead for security across the entire country, and by the end of next year, 2014, the transition will be complete. afghans will have full responsibility for their security, and this war will come to a responsible end. this progress is possible because of the incredible sacrifices of our troops and our diplomats, the forces of our many coalition partners, and the afghan people, who have endured. in this war, more than 2,000 american sons and daughters have had their lives ended, whom we

honor forever, and as we announce today, in the next month i will present our nation paused highest military decoration, the medal of honor, to a staff sergeant for his service in afghanistan. today, president karzai and i have been able to review our shared strategy. with the devastating blows we have struck against al qaeda, the reason we went to war in the first place is now within reach -- insuring al qaeda can never use afghanistan to launch attacks against our country. at the same time, we pushed the taliban out of their strongholds. today, most major cities and most afghans are more secure and insurgents continue to lose territory.

afghan forces continue to grow stronger, meanwhile. as planned, some 352,000 afghan soldiers and police are now in training or on duty. most missions are already being led by afghan forces. of all the men and women in uniform in afghanistan, the vast majority are afghans who are fighting and dying for their country every day. we still face significant challenges, but because this progress our transition is on track. last year we agreed with partners that afghan forces will take the lead for security in mid 2013. president karzai and his team have been here for several days, we have consulted with our coalition partners, and we will continue to do so, and today we agreed that as afghan forces take the lead and as president karzai announces the final phase of the transition, coalition forces will move to a support role this spring.

our troops will continue to fight alongside afghans when needed, but let me say it as plainly as i can -- starting this spring, our troops will have a different mission, training, advising, assisting afghan forces. it will be an historic moment, and another step toward full afghan sovereignty, something i know that president karzai cares deeply about, as do the afghan people. this sets the stage for the further reduction of coalition forces, and we have already reduced our presence to roughly 66,000 u.s. troops, and we will continue to bring our forces home at a steady pace, and in the coming months i will announce the next phase of our draw-down. president karzai has discussed the nature of our security cooperation after 2014. our team continues to work for an agreement, and they will be guided by our respect for afghan

sovereignty and by our tenets which will be specific and narrow. first, training and assisting afghan forces, and, second, targeted counter-terrorism missions against al qaeda. it is hoped we will reach an agreement this year. security gains must be matched by political progress, so we have recommitted to a process between the afghan government and the taliban. president karzai has updated me on the afghan government's commitment to peace, and we agree this process should be -- advanced with facilitation for

talks. reconciliation requires constructive support from across the region, including pakistan. we welcome recent steps that have been taken, and look for more tangible steps, because a stable at future afghanistan is in the interest of not only the afghans and the united states but of the entire region. we reaffirmed the strategic partnership that we signed last year in kabul, an enduring partnership between sovereign nations. this includes deepening ties in trade talks, commerce, , education, and opportunities for all afghans, men and women, boys and girls. this sends a clear message to afghans into the region as afghans stand up they will not stand alone. the united states and the world stands with them. let me close by saying this continues to be a very difficult mission. our forces continue to serve and the tremendous sacrifices every day. the afghan people make significant sacrifices every day.

afghan forces will still be growing stronger. we remain vigilant against insider attacks. lasting peace and security will require governments at the ballot that delivers for the afghan people an end to safe havens for al qaeda. this will continue to get our work. make no mistake, our path is clear and we're moving forward. every day, more afghans are stepping up and taking a possibility, and as they do, our troops will come home. next year, this long war will come to responsible end. president karzai, i thank you and your delegation for the progress we have made together and for your commitment to the goals that we share. a strong and sovereign afghanistan, where afghans find security, peace, prosperity, and dignity, and in pursuit of that future, afghanistan will have a long-term partner in the united

states of america. mr. president? >> thank you very much, mr. president, for your warm welcome and for appearing with us during our talks in the blair house. the president and i discussed today in great detail all the relevant issues between the two countries. i was happy to see that we have made progress on some of the important issues for afghanistan. concerning afghan sovereignty, we agreed on the complete return of detention centers and detainees to afghan sovereignty and that this will be

implemented soonug implemented soon enough on my return to afghanistan. we also discussed all aspects of transition to afghan government and security. i am very happy to hear from the president as we also discussed it earlier that in the spring this year the afghan forces will be fully responsible for providing security and protection to the afghan people and that the international forces will be no longer present in afghan villages, that the task will be that of the afghan forces to provide for the afghan people in security and protection.

we also agreed on the steps that you should be taking in the peace process, which is giving sovereignty to afghanistan. we agreed on allowing the taliban have an office, where the taliban will engage in direct talks with the representatives of the afghan high council for peace, where we will be seeking that help of relevant reasonable countries, including pakistan, where we will try our best together with the other allies to return peace and stability to afghanistan as soon as possible and employee in all the means that are within our power to do that, so that the afghan people can live in security, peace, and work for the prosperity and education of their children.

the president and i also discussed the economic transition of afghanistan and all that entails for afghanistan. once the transition to afghan forces is completed, once the bulk of the international forces are withdrawn from afghanistan, we hope the dividends of that transition will be beneficial to the afghan people and will not have adverse effects on afghan economy and the prosperity that we have obtained. we also discussed the issue of the election in afghanistan and the importance of election for the afghan people, with the hope that we will be conducting a free and fair election in afghanistan where our friends in the international community and the united states will be assisting in conducting those elections.

of course, where afghanistan will have the right environment for conducting elections without interference and without undue concern. we also discussed in a bit of detail and in the environment that we have all aspects of the bilateral security agreement between afghanistan and the united states, and i informed the president that the afghan people already have given their approval to this relationship and value it as one that is good for afghanistan. in that context, the bilateral security agreement is one that

the afghan people approve, and i am sure we will conduct it in detail where both the interests of the united states and the interests of afghanistan will be kept in mind. we had a number of other issues also to talk about during our conversations, and perhaps many times in that conversation, beginning with the composition of course. i thanked the president for the help that the united states has given to the afghan people for all that we have gained in the past 10 years and that those gains will be kept by any standard while we're working for peace and stability in afghanistan, including concern for the afghan constitution. i also thanked the president for the sacrifices of the men and women and those of other countries. i also informed president obama

of the sacrifices of the afghan people, the immense sacrifices of the afghan people in the last 10 years, both servicemen and the afghan people. i am going back to afghanistan this evening to bring to the afghan people the news of afghanistan standing shoulder to shoulder with america as a sovereign, independent country, but in cooperation and in partnership. thank you, mr. president. >> thank you very much. we have got two questions each from u.s. and afghan press, and we will start with scott wilson of "the washington post." >> mr. president, moving the deadline to the spring, it does

that mean you will be winding down u.s. troops faster than you expected this year, and specifically, how many troops do you expect to leave in afghanistan beyond 2014 for the missions? and would you consider leaving any trips beyond that date without an immediate agreement for their actions? president karzai, you have spoken about the american presence poses as a threat to afghanistan sovereignty. how many u.s. troops you would accept after that time? thank you. >> scott, our first task has been to meet the transition plan that we set first in lisbon, then in chicago.

and because of the progress that has been made by our troops, because of the progress that has been made in terms of afghan security forces, their capacity to take the lead, we are able to meet those goals accelerate them somewhat. so let me repeat. what is going to happen this spring is that afghans will be in the lead throughout the country. that does not mean that coalition forces, including u.s. forces, are no longer fighting. they will still be fighting alongside afghan troops. it does mean, though, that afghans will have taken the lead and our presence, the nature of our work, will be different. we will be in a training, assisting, and advising mode. we will still have troops there,

and that means that our men and women will still be in harm's way, that there will still be the need for enforced protection, the environment will still be very dangerous, but what we have seen is that afghan soldiers are stepping up at great risk to themselves, and that allows us than to make this transition during the spring. what that translates into precisely in terms of how this drawdown proceeds is something that is not yet fully determined. i am going to be over the coming weeks getting recommendations from general allen and other commanders. they will design a responsible plan to make sure that we are not losing the gains that had already been made, that we're in a position to support the afghan units when they are in theater, and to make sure that our folks

are also protected, even as we are drawing down. i cannot give you a precise number at this point. i will be making a separate announcement once i have got recommendations from the generals and our commanders in terms of what that drawdown might look like. with respect to post-2014, we have two goals, and the main conversation today was establishing a meeting of the minds in terms of what those goals would be with a follow-on presence of u.s. troops. number one, to train, assist, and advise afghan forces so they can maintain their own security, and, number two, making sure that we can continue to go after remnants of al qaeda or other affiliates that might threaten our homeland.

that is a very limited mission, and it is not one that will require the same kind of footprint that we have had over the last 10 years in afghanistan. similar to the issue of drawdown, i am still getting recommendations from the pentagon and our commanders on the ground in terms of what that would look like. and when we have more information about that, i will be describing that to the american people. i think president karzai's primary concern, and you will hear directly from him, is making sure afghan sovereignty is respected. and if we have a follow-on force of any sort past 2014, it has to be at the invitation of the afghan government, and they have to feel comfortable with it. i will say, as i have said to president karzai, that we have agreements with countries like this all around the world, and nowhere do we have any kind of

security agreement with a country without immunity for our troops. that is how i as commander in chief can make sure that our folks are protected in carrying out very difficult missions. i think president karzai understands that. i do not want to get ahead of research in terms of the negotiations that are still remaining on the bilateral security agreement, but from my perspective, it will not be possible for us to have any kind of u.s. troop presence post-2014 without assurances that our men and women who are operating there in some way subject to the jurisdiction of another country. >> well, sir, the bilateral security agreement is in mind for the interests of both

countries. the issue of the immunity is of very specific importance to the united states we understand, as was for us the issue of sovereignty and the tensions and the continued presence of international forces in afghan villages and the conduct of the war itself. with those issues resolved, as we did today, the rest was done earlier, i can go to the afghan people and argue for immunity for u.s. troops in afghanistan in a way that afghan sovereignty will not be compromised, in a way that afghan law will not be

compromised, in a way that the provisions that we arrived at through our talks will give the united states the satisfaction of what it seeks, and will also provide the afghan people the benefit that they are seeking through this partnership and the subsequent agreement. [indiscernible] that is not for us to decide. it is an issue for the united states. numbers are not going to make a difference to the situation in afghanistan. it is the broader relationship that will make a difference to afghanistan and beyond in the region. the specifics of numbers are issues that the military will decide and afghanistan will have no particular concern and we are talking of numbers and how they are deployed. [indiscernible]

>> i direct my question in my own language. mr. president, the mission of the united states, after 2014 -- how this mission will be, will it be resembling the same mission as it was during 11 years, or instead, a different kind of mission? and pakistan in particular, the safe havens that are in pakistan, what kind of policy will you have? thank you. >> the mission will be fundamentally different. just to repeat, our main reason, should we have troops in afghanistan post-2014, at the

invitation of the afghan government, will be to make sure that we are training, assisting, and advising afghan security forces who have taken the lead and are responsible for security throughout afghanistan, and the interest the united states has, the reason we went into first place, is to make sure that al qaeda and its affiliates cannot launch an attack against the united states or other countries from afghanistan. we believe we can achieve that mission in a way that is very different from the very active presence that we have had in afghanistan over the last 11 years. president karzai has emphasized the strains that u.s. troop presence in afghan villages, for

example, has created. that will not be a strain if there is a follow-up operation because that will not be our responsibility. that will be the responsibility of the afghan national security forces to maintain peace, order, and stability in afghan villages, in afghan territory. so i think, although obviously we are still two years away, i can say with assurance that this is a very different mission and very different task and a very different footprint for the u.s. if we are able to come to an appropriate agreement. with respect to pakistan and safe havens of there, afghanistan and the united states and pakistan all have an interest in reducing the threat of extremism in some of these border regions between

afghanistan and pakistan. that will require more than simply military actions. that is really going to require political and diplomatic work between afghanistan and pakistan, and the united states obviously will have an interest in facilitating and participating in cooperation between the two sovereign countries. as president karzai has indicated, it is very hard to imagine a stability and peace in the region if pakistan and afghanistan do not come to some basic agreement and understanding about the threat of extremism to both countries and both governments in the capitals, and you are starting to see a greater awareness of that on the part of the pakistani government.

>> the question that you have made about -- we talked about this issue in detail today, about the presence, the detention centers. all of these will refer to the afghan sovereignty, where the u.s. forces will pull out from villages, will go to their bases, and afghan sovereignty will be restored, after 2014. we're working on these relations. these relations will have a different nature and will be working on different principles. it will resemble turkey or

germany. we are studying these relationships, and we will do that. >> thank you, mr. president. as you contemplate the end of this war, can you say something as commander in chief of the huge human, financial costs that this is, if it can be justified, that the world left behind will be somewhat diminished than at the beginning of the war? president karzai, many independent studies have criticized afghanistan for corruption and poor governance. do you stand by your assertion that much of this is due to influence of foreigners? will you stand down for elections next year?

>> i want us to remember why we went to afghanistan. we went into afghanistan because 3,000 americans were viciously murdered by a terrorist organization that was operating openly and at the invitation of those who were then ruling afghanistan. it was absolutely the right thing for us to go after that organization, to go after the host government that had aided and abetted or at least allowed for these attacks to take place, and because of the work of our men and women in uniform and because of the corporation and

the sacrifices of afghans who had also been brutalized by the then host government, we achieved our central goal, which is -- or have come very close to achieving the central goal -- which was to decapitate al qaeda. everything we have done over the last 10 years, from the perspective of the u.s. national security interests, have been focused on that goal. and at the end of this conflict, we are going to be able to say that the sacrifices that were made by those men and women in uniform has brought about the goal that we sought. now, when we also recognize the very early on was that it was in our national security interest

to have a stable, sovereign afghanistan that was a responsible international actor, that was in partnership with us, and that that required afghanistan to have its own security capacity and to be on a path that was more likely to achieve prosperity and peace for its own people. and i think president karzai would be the first to acknowledge afghanistan still has work to do to accomplish those goals, but there is no doubt that the possibility of peace and prosperity in afghanistan today is higher than before we went in. and that is also in part because of the sacrifices that the american people have made during this long conflict. do i think have we achieved everything that some might have wanted us achieving in some areas?

probably not. this is a human enterprise. did we achieve our central goal, and have we been able to shape a strong relationship with a responsible afghan government that is willing to cooperate with us to make sure that it is not a launching pad for future attacks against united states? we have achieved that goal, we are in the process of achieving that goal, and for that we have to take our turn very military, diplomatic and intelligence teams as well as the cooperation of the afghan government and the afghan people. >> on the question of corruption, whether it has a foreign element to it, in answer

to your question, there is corruption in afghanistan, there is corruption in the afghan government that we are fighting against through various means and methods. we have succeeded in certain ways, but if your question is whether we are satisfied, of course not. and on the corruption that is foreign in the origin, but occurring in afghanistan, i have been very clear and explicit, and i do not think that afghanistan can see this corruption unless there is cooperation between us and foreign international partners on correcting some of the

methods or applications, delivery of assistance to afghanistan, without cooperation, and without recognition of the problems. on elections, for me, the greatest of my achievements eventually as seen by the afghan people will be a proper, reorganized, interference-free election in which the afghan people can elect their next president. certainly, i would be a very tired president and a very happily retired president.

>> my questions to you, mr. president, afghan women fear that they would be the victim of the process in afghanistan. what assurances can you give them that they will not suffer because of that process? thank you. >> the united states has been very clear that any peace process, any reconciliation process must be afghan led. it is not for the afghan press or the united states to determine what this peace will be, but what we have also been clear about is that from our perspective it is not possible to reconcile without the taliban renouncing terrorism, without them recognizing the afghan constitution, and recognizing that if there are changes they

want to make to how the afghan government operates, then there is an orderly constitutional process to do that, and that you cannot resort to violence. the afghan constitution protects the rights of afghan women. and the united states strongly believes that afghanistan cannot succeed unless it gives opportunity to its women. we believe that about every country in the world. we will continue to voice very strongly support for the afghan constitution's protection for minorities, its protection of women, and we think that a failure to provide that protection not only will make

reconciliation impossible to achieve, but also would make afghanistan's longterm development impossible to achieve. the single best indicator or one of the single best indicators of a country's prosperity around the world is how does it treat its women. does it educate that half of the population? does it give them opportunity? when it does, you will unleash the power of everyone, not just some, and there was great wisdom in afghanistan ratifying a constitution that recognizes that appeared that should be part of the legacy of these last 10 years. thank you very much, everybody. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] >> president karzai spoke at georgetown university. president karzai also took questions from the audience. >> good evening, everyone. welcome to our distinguished guests from all around the world, especially afghanistan, our faculty, students, colleagues and friends. the u.s. afghan women's council at georgetown university is so delighted to co-host tonight's event.

this dynamic council a private partnership with members from abroad array of sectors who seek to advance the role of women and children in afghan society. they have invested heavily in the society in health, education, and leadership. our president is one of the co- chairs of the council. it is my great pleasure to introduce him this evening. he is a scholar, advocate, and a true friend of afghanistan. [applause] >> thank you very much for that introduction and your work as vice chair of the u.s. afghan women's council. i wish to thank the members from the delegation from afghanistan, u.s. afghan women's council and

all of our guests from around the world for joining us this evening. it is a privilege to welcome back to georgetown the president of afghanistan hamid karzai. we look forward to hearing his remark on afghanistan beyond 2014, a perspective on afghan- u.s. relations. 2014 will be an historic year for afghanistan as it will witness elections across the country and the end of u.s. and is combat operations. as president obama, secretary of state clinton and many of this room have emphasized this

transition provides us with the opportunity for diplomatic and cultural relations between our peoples. at georgetown, we are proud to be a part of this critical work notably through the u.s. afghan women's council. the council is a public private partnership that has been housed here at the university since 2008. it was founded in 2002 by president karzai and president bush in support of afghan women and children. it's focused its work of areas of education, health, economic empowerment, leadership development, and humanitarian assistance. since its founding the council has created call leadership,-- scholarships,

ski provided skills training, literacy and health care, established a burn center to treat victims and provide reconstructive surgery and provide leadership training for afghan women. in recent years we have witnessed significant improvements of the lives of women and children throughout afghanistan. educational opportunities for all children, including girls have increased. improvements have been made in the area of maternal and child health with the maternal mortality rate drops to 460 today. many advancements have been realized with 90% of afghanistan cover bid the four main telecom providers.

we wish to make sure these are sustained, built upon and expanded in the future and we recognize more must be done and we look forward to working with our partners in the public and private sector to continue to see improvements in the lives of afghan women and children and the afghan people as a whole. as co-chair of the council i wish to invite each of you in this room to become involved in our common work. tonight, here our work continues. we have the opportunity to talk to the leader and hear his thoughts on the future of his country, his people, and afghan- u.s. relations. as the university and in tradition we believe in the power of discourse and dialogue to bring us to a greater understanding of one another, of our shared world, and our work together. we will look forward to the

dialogue that tonight's program will inspire in the weeks and months ahead. ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege to welcome to the podium the president of afghanistan hamid karzai. [applause] >> please. thank you very much. please. this is my second time in this lovely hall. the first time was quite a few years ago and when i was very

popular in the u.s. the second time is more real time. this university is also the one that has honored me with an honorary doctrine and i thank you once again for that. it is hanging in my living room with expectation that my son one day will be studying here. so i keep telling him georgetown university. [laughter] but ladies and gentlemen, the journey we began together in 2001 that is afghanistan and the united states. it was for a great cause.

freeing civilians from terrorism and radicalism, little bitter rating afghanistan -- liberating afghanistan from an invasion and a rule by the taliban. the first one, in reverse order, the first one freeing afghanistan happened within a month and a half to two months. subsequent of that afghanistan began its journey towards democracy, the rule of law, progress in all aspects of life.

it went all right. it went reasonably good under the circumstances. without a doubt with the help of the united states and our other allies around the world. the second part, freeing us all from terrorism and radicalism, didn't work as swiftly as we expected. there was bumps along the road and setbacks. now, the afghan people regardless where they stand recognize that afghanistan could not have made the progress that we have made in the past 10 years without the help we

received from our allies. led by the united states of america. in more cruder terms the u.s. taxpayer's money. it contributed to afghanistan's upliftment. it contributed to the workplace, to society, to policy, the return of young girls to education. the return of universities, roads, communications, mobile phones, computers, all of that. [laughter]

mobile phone wasn't a joke. i meant it. in 2001, we barely had telephones. my office was given a few walkie-talkie that was our form of communication we had. today, the population of nearly 30 million has telephone available to 18 million. not one, two, or three companies but many more, four or five and they own them all.

so the country has made progress. now, the war on terror has been costly. it has been costly to you in america, so many of your men and women in uniform has lost life. it has been costly to our allies. it also has been costly massively to the afghan people. we have lost in the past 10 years tens of thousands of civilians to violence. this year alone, i mean, last year this year has just begun, each month we lost 250 of our servicemen and women to terrorism and nearly 450

casualties in our villages each month. so the cost has been immense. therefore, there are complaints on both sides. it has been a difficult journey. a journey at which at times expectations are not met. when that doesn't happen both sides complain. i'm aware of the complaints in your media. you're aware of my complaints. but the journey continued, the relationship continued. afghanistan would always be better off in close contact and partnership with the united states.

that is why last year will be convened afghan or the grand council, the afghan voted for partnership with the united states. they voted for a partnership with the united states and a sovereign country. and excepting that sovereignty will be respected by our allies. today, i'm glad to report to you, ladies and gentlemen that asked, the afghans and the united states government agreed upon a format for expanding our relationship into the bilateral security agreement. by which, the united states will reduce its forces in afghanistan, will stay beyond

2014 in a limited number, in certain facilities in afghanistan and the united states will continue to train and assist afghanistan and afghanistan will be responsible for its own security and protection of its own boards and all that comes with it. so is the future certainly good for us? does it have dangers on its way? are we certain to move forward? will this partnership work? yes. what you hear in segments or the various bodies informing you on events in afghanistan, the media.

if i watched television in the united states or in europe and just judged afghanistan from that perspective it would be a disaster. i would lose all hope. but if i came from afghanistan with all the traffic jams there and all the pollution there now and tall phones ringing there, with all the television channels there, we all the hustle and bustle of life and the young people going to education, studying, working, and making life move forward.

i would give you a different perspective. i would say afghanistan is definitely moving in the right direction. 2014 will be a good year for us. and the year after will be even better and this country will have its third presidential elections. in a year and few months i will be a retired president. there will be a new president elected by the afghan people. the economy will move further it has been growing at 8% to 9%. in 10 years from a mere $180 per capita we're looking at $600 to $700 million. today, we're talking -- i don't know if i should tell you that because other governments will

hear me and not help us anymore. [laughter] $7 billion in our reserves. more than 30 universities private and public. roads, electricity, the future holds clear and progress and prosperity but the standards of our region and afghanistan. now will afghanistan, 10 years from now be a very prosperous country? will they have resolved all the difficulties? will afghanistan be a super power? no. but afghanistan will be a

country that will be moving forward. education will grow better. thousands of students will graduate in our own universities. thousands more will come from studies abroad who are now studying abroad. the democracy and institutions that democracy requires will grow, there will be more elections. there will be more institutional reform. there will be a better government but afghanistan will continue to face problems, there may be violence and there might be other challenges as we move forward but the speed of progress will move and will not stop. will afghanistan remember the united states as a country that helped or a country that did not help?

definitely afghanistan will remember the united states as a country that helped. definitely afghanistan will remember that it was the u.s. assistance that brought so much to afghanistan. who will forget the less pleasant aspect ours relationship and we will move forward in the gratitude of the help that the united states has provided to afghanistan and also our other neighbors. but from today as we move forward will this relationship be a emotional as it was at time as you have heard in the past many years? will this relationship be more mature? this relationship has already grown mature. we recognize the united states interest and afghanistan and the

region and the united states recognizes that afghanistan is a good country. and has a life of its own. it has a law of its own and has a social context of its own.in t afghanistan will move forward in partnership with america and also until partnership with the other countries of nato that have helped us in the past many years. will afghanistan, beyond 2014, be a country that you can visit as tourists? yes, it will. will afghanistan suffer the consequences of terrorism? it might on occasions. will the peace process work? it will.

will the peace process take us back to times where the afghan woman could not go to work? no. will we keep our progress it is part of if peace process? yes. it is important today to get through this forum where the afghan woman council was created many years ago. if afghanistan will have peace but peace with the taliban will not drive us away from the gains that we have made. rather those gains will definitely be consolidated and those gains will remain with the afghan people. as i'm talking to you, afghanistan has a standing police of 350,000. afghanistan has a banking

sector, afghanistan has a strong culture. you've all heard of pomegranates they come from afghanistan. you have heard of grapes. they come from afghanistan. the ones that come from afghanistan, i know you have them in california as well. [laughter] so, ladies and gentlemen, there is a country in afghanistan just like here in america just like the rest of the world. there is wedding and wedding halls, there is music, there is cars honking, there are donkey driven carts. there is society, there is life. this society is out loudly and moving forward as any other society. it is this that i would like you to remember when you think of afghanistan.

a country of 5000 years of history, at least. a country that has produced thinkers, philosophers. a country like other countries, and i can tell you that the most recent suffering will be behind us. a new time is beginning, has already begun. with 2014 coming, your sons and daughters will no longer be burdened with protecting afghanistan. the sons and daughters will take the mantle and move forward. and plenty more can best be described by frost. the words are lovely, dark, and d. but i have promises to keep and

miles to go before i sleep and miles to go before we sleep in afghanistan. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. >> thank you for your inspiring remarks. we asked our georgetown community, and now that we have heard from you about your degree, what the first question should be that we ask you.

and we asked facebook so we could get as broad a response as possible. i have the daunting job of choosing which and trying to frame this question. you know students are very frank, and in their responses, the students of georgetown including several afghan students expressed their concerns about corruption, security, women's rights, and economic opportunity. the first question i would like to put to you on behalf of all these students, what hope can you offer a young generation of afghan men and women? >> a great question. hope has already been offered in afghanistan.

what we had in 2001, only a few thousand students going to school, and none of them girls. today, you have a million students going to school, 45% of them girls, and they are used well. out of a membership of 240, 70 of the parliament are women. that is already taken. when you have a country having thousands of bridges and roads,

never did we build some money in 10 years, that opportunity is taken. the country today has students, politicians, business is moving forward and thriving. that hope is taken. the question should be, will this hopes persist in 2014 when international forces withdraw from afghanistan? when they will be on their own, will we continue with this vote? without a doubt. if i am lucky enough to stand before you here again 10 years ago, we will speak three times in numbers.

that certainty is there, and i am absolutely sure it is going to be the case. >> that is very hopeful. in order to get a broad representation of questions, we asked student organizations to formulate questions for his excellency. the first organization out like to call is the international development club. >> good evening, mr. president, and thank you for being with us tonight. i am chair of the international relations club. close enough. my question to you on behalf of my organization is this. if from a security perspective, one of the greatest concerns is that al qaeda will rebound and

afghan the stand will become a terrorist state. how can you mitigate without risking green on blue attacks? >> one of the reasons the united states will continue a presence in afghanistan after 2014 in certain facilities, it is because we have decided to gather to continue to fight against al qaeda. there will be no respite in that. we will continue to work, and they will not. they are decimated, largely, and on their way out.

when i receive security, we have meetings on security issues and we never come across the question whether it is a threat. the fact that the fight will continue, and affiliates will continue. and part of the reason the united states will continue to have limited facilities will be to continue that task. it is also recognized by our neighbors. thank you.

>> international relations club, thank you. i can get it right the second time. the next student organization we would invite is the student association. >> my name is thomas gibbons, i am the president of the student veterans association. if i have served to deployment in your country as the united states marines. what would you say to an american family that has lost a son or daughter in afghanistan, and what would you say they die for? >> that is a relevant question. the united states came to afghanistan, as i said, to defeat terrorism. after these of timber 11 attack. the united states came to afghanistan for the security of

the united states. and also for afghans. that act -- those unfortunate incidents of the lives lost in afghanistan were for the safety and security of the united states. and also, by extension, for the rest of us in the international community. just like the sacrifice of the afghan people. thank you. >> the next organization we would like to thank for organizing this event and the events like this in the university will be the lecture fund. >> i'm a member of the lecture

fund and a sophomore. in the new york times, taliban fighters that lay down arms are getting increasingly frustrated and returning to the taliban. they cite a high unemployment rate for the reason for their frustration. what will you do to combat this trend? >> the high peace council whose chairman is here with us, a fund is dedicated to this purpose. this is the reintegration program. they are driven back with society. if there are instances, and i am

sure there are, it requires assistance sooner and we will definitely look at it. it is a very important question, thank you for reminding us. >> the last student organization we would invite is the muslim student association. >> good evening, mr. president. i am with the moslem student association. we understand education as a vital factor in the overall growth and future stability of afghanistan. educated citizens can drive change from within. what are your plans short-term and long-term to ensure that

this progress that you mentioned of education continues to move forward? especially in regard to increased access of education for women. >> we did see a great deal of violence against schools in the initial years by the taliban. we succeeded against that. there are executions and -- pakistan is going through a very difficult time. and other of events there, they are all a source of concern for us. i can speak with satisfaction, the suffering that we have had, our schools are safer in the past three years, the great majority of girls go to school in afghanistan do if in safety and security.

we have not had any major incidents. and this concern for families and students would be less and less a matter to think of. thank you, sir. >> this will conclude the program. i have one important announcement before i thank our remarkable speaker. please do not leave your seat until you hear the voice in the wilderness that will this mess us. and only the afghan delegation will depart until such moment.

on behalf of all of us, you have given us allot to think about. a lot of inspiration. women are lucky to have your support and we look forward to a wonderful future for your country. thank you so much. [applause] >> tomorrow, two different perspectives on climate change and a recent national oceanic and atmospheric administration report. our guests --

we talk about senators who are investigating the cia's sources and their role in the movie zero dark thirty. later, a look at the food and drug administration's new safety rules. we're joined by sarah klein. "washington journal" live the 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> he could read the president's moods of like anyone else. unlike mrs. roosevelt, he knew when to be still in the presence

of the president, went to press back off and tell a joke. he said to the president, why do keep that man so close to you? he did not like hopkins. roosevelt said, you know, you may be in this office some day in you will understand. he asks for nothing except to serve me. >> harry hopkins lived in the roosevelt white house for 3.5 years. sunday at 10:00 eastern on c- span2. >> a lookit afghan president karzei strip to washington this week and discussion on combating

terrorism with colonel michael meese. is a former adviser to general petraeus. he served in the u.s. army for more than two decades. from the alabama world affairs council, this is just over an hour. it is the first time i have ever been to montgomery, so i greatly appreciate the invitation. general cleveland is nothing if not persistent in coming after speakers. the first time he called me, i was in afghanistan, he wondered why i could come back here to do

this. being a distinguished graduate of the u.s. military academy class of 1949, an ace during the korean war, and to think it was 60 years ago last september, if i get the history right, that general cleveland became an ace, it is truly remarkable, so please join me in thanking him for his service. [applause] i also appreciate them recognizing my father as a member of the reagan administration. when i teach at west point, they think the reagan administration was sometimes after the taft administration, so people who recognize the name of edwin meese iii, it is great to be here, and i appreciate you

taking the time out of your busy schedule to come here and be better informed about what our nation is doing with regard to combating terrorism and what we are doing as a people and as a military, and where that is going. i will tell you a little bit about that. i want to say for all of you and especially for c-span that these are my personal academic opinions and not those of the united states government. as you will hear, it should be the position of united states government. [laughter] i come to this audience with a bit of trepidation. there are so many people who pay attention to these issues that i have to remain humble in these circumstances, and when i do that, i begin by telling myself the story, which is a true story, about the u.s.s. abraham lincoln and canadian authorities off the coast of newfoundland in

1995. here is how the radio communication took place. the u.s. said on the radio, "please divert your course 15 degrees to the south to avert collision." canadians responded, "negative, you divert your course 15 degrees to the north to avoid the collision." "this is the captain of the u.s. navy warship. divert your course to 15 degrees to the south." canadians responded, "no, you divert your course 15 degrees to the north." "this is the aircraft carrier u.s.s. lincoln, the second largest in the atlantic fleet. we are accompanied by numerous support vessels. i demand you divert your course 15 degrees to the south, or countermeasures will be taken." "this is a lighthouse. your call."

[laughter] i will remain humble and not be too arrogant as i give you some thoughts about terrorism, and what i thought i would do is let you know what we have done at west point. it is the follow on to that with the combating terrorism center at west point, and the second part is to tell you about what we teach cadets with regard to iraq, where i have spent 12 months on three different tours, and talk about afghanistan, where i just came back last summer, spent from the summer of 2010 and the summer of 2011 in afghanistan, and then talk a little bit about the way forward with regard to national security. i will try to leave plenty of time for questions and look forward to your questions at the end.

when the world trade towers collapsed on 9/11, it was 45 miles south in new york city. i was teaching a class at the time, and we had a scheduled briefing by the dean of the academic ward from the west point class of 1968. he was supposed to speak about what they were going to major in, and it got all the sophomores and an auditorium that holds 1,100 cadets, and it was 12:30 right after lunch on 9/11, and he said, events like this is when the military and the army go into action and get things done. and that is what we have had to wrestle with at west point, of what you do, how do you change the curriculum, what do you do to prepare the young men and women at west point that are

going to have the awesome responsibility of leading soldiers in combat during a period of violence in which we were not sure about? when we looked around at this, literally the next couple of nights, several of us went down to new york city to help with recovery efforts at ground zero, and one of our graduates from the class of 1977, who was the head of the american mercantile exchange, said, we ought to study this at west point to better prepare the cadets. so we took a look at various histories and what we wanted to do, and we were reassured by these words from a president. when we saw the challenges of an ideologically driven hatred that would be with us for a generation, and then we realized that we had done this before and that these were at the time not the words of president bush, but the words of president eisenhower when he was talking about communism. and throughout the cold war, we had in most universities, here in alabama and throughout the united states, soviet studies

departments and entire fields of professors that were looking at communism. but we did not have a similar set of people that were studying the radical islamist salafi jihadi ideology within our universities in general and especially not at west point or within the military. so we thought there needed to be an important linkage, and so we came up with a vision that you can see on this slide to look at the intellectual and strategic issues. of course, the united states government has a very sophisticated intelligence apparatus that does an excellent job with many

professionals in washington and throughout the world. they're very good at analyzing intelligence, very good at providing information up to decision makers. but there was not really a linkage between a lot of the strategic study that was happening in colleges and universities, many in near east studies departments and others, and the military. what we found was west point was in a unique position because in a sense, similar to the area universities. it is both a dot-mil and a dot- edu. we were able to bring academics down from the ivory towers. thucydides said, "a nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its laws made by cowards and its wars

fought by fools." our purpose was to put together an organization that could link together the best two aspects of the united states, the best we are in the world at, the best military and the best academics, to be able to address the critical issues of terrorism. so we came up with a mission to have the center educate, advise, and conduct research to provide information, both for current leaders and the future leaders, the cadets that we are teaching, about the current and future threats of terrorism. we do that to educate cadets, through doing research, and

actually a limited part of what we do is policy analysis, because the professionals in washington concentrate on policy and analysis do that and much more rapid fashion than we do up at west point, but is still an important part that is derived from a lot of the things that we do. when the first and most important thing that we do every day is teach cadets, and we concentrate on providing that education in a rigorous curriculum that is designed for every cadet at west point that we have integrated into the ss307 international relations course, so they understand the roots of terrorism and that some of the counter-terrorism actions that are taken by our nation so that every cadet gets that. in addition to the core instruction that is taught to every cadet, we created the first minor in terrorism studies. in addition to taking civil

engineering, arabic, or economics, they can get a minor in terrorism studies where they take five courses that focus on terrorism, homeland security, and related courses, and then are able to focus that in their particular area to prepare them for their lifetime service in the army. as we developed this curriculum and published text books and published articles, all we found that others were interested in what we were doing, and so the assistant director of the fbi for counter- terrorism came to west point and said the fbi could benefit from this kind of education as well. and so they asked west point to go and expand our education for

cadets to what we now call practitioner education. we send people from west point and combating terrorism center down to quantico, virginia, to the fbi academy, and they teach each new agent and new analyst instruction on terrorism to reinforce the kinds of things that are taught at the fbi academy. to come here and be informed about what we are doing to counter terrorism and where that is going. i'll tell you a little bit about that.

i do want to state for all of you and especially for c-span these are my personal academic opinions and not the position of the united states government so they have that disclaimer out there. although, as you'll hear as i'm talking about it, i think it should be the position of the united states government.

enemies and far enemies by looking at the research and documenting what they are saying among and between each other, and it gives us important insight.

the second thing we combine that with is what is known as the database. it is maintained by the defense intelligence agency in washington and it consists of all of the captured battlefield documents. american and other persons pick up on the battlefield. they get put into this electronic database. it is a very useful database for the intelligence agencies. these are all things captured from the battlefield from the terrorists themselves. once forces have gone through and found out whether or not there is immediate targeting of value, it goes into this large database. one of the values of having -- not only cannot hire people with master's degrees and a ph.d. is, i can also get them

security clearances so they can access these databases and request the declassification of many of these documents. . you can combine it with literature they're putting on the web with the scholarly journals that are out there and we can learn a lot more about what is happening within terrorism. that is what we teach to our cadets every day. but i will do is reflect those as i talk about iraq and afghanistan and tell you a little bit about some of lessons that we've learned from iraq and afghanistan because frequently although we've been involved in those conflicts for over a decade now, often many of the

details are not sufficiently covered which we will not correct by covenants on c-span. frequently, the media, when you turn on the tv at night will be covering the kardashian failed marriage. rather than captured the very complex actions that your military has taken within iraq and afghanistan. think kansas and not new mexico. there is snow in afghanistan. you can see

well, it's important because of the pace of history when we now withdraw all forces from afghanistan, people don't remember what has happened over the last six years. you think back six years ago to december of 2006, afghanistan was literally on fire. this map is of baghdad and each of these plots are actually incidents that took place. this is from january of 2006 to the end of 2006 with the increase of civilian deaths and increase of improvised explosive device that is took place. iraq was in the middle of a full blown civil war with 3,000 iraqis killing each other every single month and there was very little thought to how that was going to correct itself. and many of you may remember the political controversy that faced the bush administration at

the time. the important decision that is were made at the end of 2006 and the beginning of 2007 and are now coming out in all of the books are use to feel go back and look at. it was an important decision where president bush agreed with prime minister malachi the prime minister of iraq to surge 30,000 troops into iraq and 30,000 troops into baghdad to be able to address this civil war that was happening in iraq and try to keep it from becoming a much broader, much more dangerous, much more difficult conflict. but the important aspect at the time the three star commander over there is now the chief of staff of the army and was the core commander in charge of all the units there and general petraeus came in.

what they recognized at the time was adding the additional 30,000 forces, if you did not change the tactics and the procedures at the time would probably not have worked as well. so subsequently, it was important to change three major ideas. and i'll explain those because it explains a lot of what we may be doing going in the future with regard to counterterrorism and the distinction between counterterrorism and counter insurgency. this was the doctrine that was developed with regard to counter insurgency. the important of it is that it address it is population and focuses instead of focusing exclusively on the enemy focuses on the population that you see there, some of which support the

government, some of which are neutral or passive, and some of which are part of the insurgency. it addresses all of the aspects of the insurgency or terrorists and some people think that it's just a lot of hearts and mind stuff. all of this stability thing where we work on government and economics and services and those sorts of things, and that's important. but it's equally important to recognize that it also is critical to have offensive operations, and that's a lot of the counterterrorism force that is are able to capture and kill

the insurgents or terrorists in the area as well as the defensive force that is protect the u.s. soldiers and the host nation soldiers, in this case in iraq, building up the host nation so that they have the force that is are sufficient to be able to address the insurgency at the time. the objective is moving left to right where you have more people supportive of the government and a much smaller insurgency that is involved. this theory applies to iraq and afghanistan and more broadly applies to counterterrorism as we go forward in the future. the second dig distinction that took place was splitting the opposition. if you look on this slide, in the center we knew we were supporting the government which included most of the people in iraq that were broadly supportive of what was happening with the malachi

government, again, with some problems that happen in any kind of political situation. the distinction was on the left- hand side, you had the extremist over here, al qaeda in iraq, the islamic state of iraq, those were the extremist that had to be captured or killed. on the other extreme you had the extremist that were supported by iran, the secret cells and special groups that also had to be captured or killed as part of counterterrorism operations. the real question is what do you do with the people in the middle? those groups that are negotiate completely in the insurgents camp or the government camp. this is one of the key changes that is referred to as the end bar awakening.

a man came to him and said look, we're tired of the taliban forcing us to follow them, not letting us do our normal trucking businesses, forcing our women into forced marriages, not allowing people or chopping off their fingers if they're caught smoking, we will stop opposing you if you'll allow us to be part of the defense of iraq. and in fact, this is how the program called the sons of iraq was created which resulted in 103,000 men that had been opposing the regime to put down their weapons and get enrolled and included fingerprints and face shots and iris scans so you could identify them if they turned up involved in other northeast fares things and was

an important way of reducing the number of terrorist that is you had to go after. as many leaders have testified before congress, general petraeus and many others we're not going to kill our way out of this war. it has a lot to do with information and it has to do with people being reconciled to their government. so this was the second important idea. the third critical idea that we did was to make sure to communicate that. and many of you probably remember the unprecedented congressional testimony in front of the house armed services committee and foreign relations committee and the senate foreign relations committees where general petraeus testified for seemed like 19 hours straight. because it was important to communicate this to the american people as well as to the

congress of the united states which at the time included four presidential candidates, at the senator clinton, senator biden, senator mccain and senator obama. and what was being challenged at the time, you may remember the advertisement that said that general petraeus was being fast and loose with statistics. and let me show you what those statistics were. these are the total amount of violent incidents in iraq from 2004 all the way up to 010. and when the insurgents started the psyches of violence it went up substantially and the question is whether this was a reduction in violence preceding the testimony or whether general petraeus was making that up. he wasn't making that up and we

didn't know it at the time but here is what ended up happening. over the past five years, with the effectiveness of the surge and especially the building up of the iraq security forces to be able to handle the violence that was taking place in iraq, to isolate and eliminate the insurgency, they were able to bring iraq down to the level of violence that could be handled locally. another important decision, i mentioned the first one made by president bush to have the surge, the second was made by president obama shortly after he came into office. you may remember he said his proposals to do a responsible

with drawl of forces from iraq which was initially thought of as pulling all the forces out in 16 months. after consulting with his advisors president obama decided to withdraw instead of the rapid line there, to go down to 50,000 troops in 19 months and then to withdraw all of the forces by the end of 2011 which was part of the agreement that president bush had established. that became particularly important for the iraq government to be able to stabilize after the elections and be able to deal with circumstances that are on the ground. again, iraq is not the place i would spend my next anniversary vacation. but you should be proud and note the work that has been done by putting together a counterterrorism strategy. we contributed i think in a small part to that at the combating terrorism center by these documents and exposing what was actually happening there in iraq.

a special forces group seized the human resources command essentially of al qaeda and iraq with the sin jar records. and they ended up identifying all of the foreign fighters in iraq. well when we published this report that you see on the left a bright news week reporter went back to the main city in libya where most of these foreign fighters came from and talked to people in that town to find out why they created so many foreign fighters. and in fact the combating terrorism center published all of them on the web so these are the actual pictures of the fighters. as a result of this it became a cover story for news week all across the middle east and pointed out the terrorists and how they duped a lot of the

people to go and fight for them and as a result the number of foreign fighters coming into iraq slowed down from over 100 a month to just a handful each missouri that come bind with the operation that is were taking place. again it reinforces the important point that terrorists will appeal to any kind of tendency they can to get recruits but once they are exposed, the line of recruiting will dwindle. we'll go through afghanistan because that is in the news this week with president karzai coming to washington to meet with people in the defense department and president obama. obviously afghanistan is vitally important as well being the source of the 9/11 attacks as well as being in between pakistan and i ran both of which are problem mats i can 23r9 united states.

what people may not recognize -- there were actually no u.s. force there is until president obama gave his speech on the first of december 2009 at west point where there will be a surge of 30,000 troops many of whom went to this area of kandahar and this area of hellman both army troops and marines to be able to address the terrorist threat. again, they did a comprehensive approach as understand iraq and here are the graphs that are relatively similar to those that i showed you. the difference is from 2008 to 2012 in afghanistan, in afghanistan the fighting is mostly in the summer, these are the summers of 2008 to the beginning of 2012 where you see a decrease in the actual year over year violence in

afghanistan through the application of both the american military forces, our allied military forces and especially the build up of the afghanistan security forces. in a little bit more detail what people here in the united states frequently don't realize is that the united states has been leading a coalition of 49 other nation that is are in afghanistan. so this really is the world's main efforts. in fact, three of the divisions the most violent areas are commanded by americans, but three of the other regional commands are commanded by a turkish general, by a german general in the north and by an italian general out on the western border with iran.

so these come bind forces have been effective in addressing many of the issues in afghanistan. now again, none of them provide a knock out blow. a lot of the discussion will continue to take place in washington over the next several days about what the future is going to be. and you hear lots of press reports about what will happen from now to 2014 which is when nato has said that all of the combat missions in afghanistan will end and part of the discussion that will take place in washington which we can address in questions and answers is what will remain there as we continue to have a very important part of the u.s. strategy. but what we've learned is that this was an opportunity for many terrorists organizations to be able to leverage the weakness

of the state of afghanistan to operate there, both their legal activities you see on the left- hand side of the slide as well as their illegal activities there on the right in which they extort money. one of the most noteworthy networks that we've written about is the hi canny network and our study of the network we sent people over to afghanistan that went with many of the counterterrorism forces that were going after them, documented what they were doing in terms of undermining the state in afghanistan, in terms of trying to have spectacular attacks that got a lot of press but didn't do a lot of damage and put that together in an academic report. that report as well as study led to the united states declaring the terrorist network being on

the treasuries financing list so that nobody can do business with that network which allows them -- prevents them from doing a lot of the action that is they were taking. another report we did was on the deadly vanguards. this documented from arabic sources the fact that 94% of those killed by al qaeda were actually muslims. this got huge coverage in the arabic media. in fact, adam ghadan, the al qaeda spokesman came out trying to refute the report. but all of the people on the web in all of the muslim web sites saw the rigorousness and saw what was really happening with al qaeda that they were killing many more muslims than

westerners in their attacks. finally, as a result of the work we were doing, when the documents that were captured when osama bin laden was killed, the decision was made to give those documents over to the combat terrorism center where they were declassified so we could look in detail about what was happening and the state of mind of osama bin laden as he was trying to get control of al qaeda as it got more and more diffuse and more and more attacking of civilians. so in fact, probably the best credit to this and i'll play this just briefly. this is the number one person in al qaeda, at this time he was number two, that spent many of his videos and this is how they communicate.

this is an actual al qaeda video. mostspeak over it because of you don't understand the arabic. he is reading and this is their video they got from our website. they've got some very good video people there in al qaeda and talked about the challenge that is we were presenting to them. as i tell my cadets, if the number one guy in al qaeda is reading our stuff, you should read your homework too. so with that, i can talk more in detail about the future of counterterrorism. begeneral, it's going to with a lot less money. as you can see this is the federal budget. most of the federal budget is on entitlements, but the largest part of the discretionary budget is in defense. that is going to continue to be reduced. this has gone down from half of the federal budget to 20% of the federal budget so as president obama met with the

defense leaders a year ago this january, he talked about the defense strategy moving forward. again, i want to leave plenty of time for questions and answers. but briefly talked a lot about leveraging as we're down sizing, leveraging the people, probably having fewer people as the army and marine corps are cutting down, maintaining our dominance in critical areas like sea, space and cyberspace. but continuing to engage in shaping operations with regard to combating terrorism, recognizing that we're not going to be able kill our way out of this but it's going to be a combination of all the aspects of power and others that are going after the terrorists networks.

we see this in the operations that have taken place throughout the middle east, in the philippines. and various parts of africa and becomes an important part of what we're doing. the final slide that i'll show you is of remington's stampede portrait. remember inc. on the stampede is what we talk to our cadets about, about the challenges of the uncertainty they will be facing as soldiers in a counterterrorism environment. it shows this environment they are facing is not precise and orally. the leader they have to be is exemplified by the stampede and the circumstances are frequently confusing. the rain is blowing sideways, there is dark and ominous clouds and seems like it's getting barely brighter as he goes forward.

some of the parts of the organization are way ahead and some may or may not catch up. honor to be able to teach the cadets that are there that are understanding more and more of what they have to confront with regard to terrorism and that task. last summer my son happened to be graduating with the class of 2012. the class of 2012 picked for their class motto for more than ourselves. i think that that reflects the generation of young men and young women that are coming to the military academy at west point and all of the other service academies or enlisting in the military services.

they are the best that our nation has to offer and it has been our pleasure at west point to be able to educate them. i hope that i've conveyed to you a little bit of what we talked to them about and what we're doing in the combating terrorism center. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible] >> yes.

>> i would like your take on the advantages of the -- [indiscernible] what do you forsee as the way that the issue of narcotics will unfold in the next few years? >> just to restate the question in case it did not come through, the challenge of narcotics and drugs in the way forward. it is in fact, a critical issue and a huge problem because drugs are one of the largest industries, if you will, in

afghanistan. there have been varies attempts on drugs -- at eradicate itself of pot fields. in general, these are my personal observations not necessarily those of government officials, most of the drugs ratification programs imposed by outside forces are usually not very effective. the reason they are not very effective is because if you're just eradicating poppy fields you are getting upset farmers who are the people you are trying to win on your side with regard to counterinsurgency. on the other hand, to have a program with alternative crops, replacing poppies with other kind of crops that can be legally grown, even though they don't have the profit margins

subsiding that seems to be effective. the only thing that has worked, last year in april of 2011 was an operation that was going after the producers after they paid for the narcotics before it got transported out of afghanistan. so you're targeting the people who are purchasing it and that can be done in a much more focused area. also focusing on the precursor chemicals that are necessary to convert the poppy into narcotics has also been important. it is something that the afghan government is trying to address.

they do have a counter narcotics program. it has had mixed results and it is going to continue to be a problem. it really has to be something that has to be addressed both within afghanistan and internationally. certainly from the western previous -- perspective reducing the price of drugs would be a huge contribution as well. >> the chief council has been asking when the war will be more or less ended and when title x authority will be removed and replaced with alesser authority. do you see a day that will come? >> i think that -- good question. jay johnson who was the general council who commented about

when the authorities would change because we've been conducting, again, armed conflict against armed terrorists. i think it will be different in different spaces and different areas. whether you are dealing with ungoverned spaces in parts of africa, yemen, afghanistan, in the philippines and each of those have to have a different -- the national command authority, the president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state and intelligence officials have to have the flexibility to use the appropriate tool with the appropriate reporting procedures back to congress and all of us as the american people. i think there will be probably

some aspect of counterterrorism that continues to be carried out for a long period of time. again, the president can also constrain what areas and what places those forces are going to be while still being able to operate under the other kinds of authorities, the law enforcement authorities would take place. the fact that we continue to have ongoing threats against the united states, the fact that we have people who are trying to come into this country and trying to radicalize others both here as well as europe it means it will be a problem, i think for the future. todoesn't mean you're going have title 10 operations across the world but i think there will still be a need for authorities to be able to -- to exercise by the secretary of defense and the president and others.

>> i am the director at am and also the founder of cyber security department. my question is on cyber warfare. what is being planned ahead since our new decade is now already busy with cyber warfare and i have not heard you nmentoin that. i am sure lots is being done. the students we are educated are anxious to know if there are job opportunities for them. >> if you are advising your students i think cyber -- the question was what the future of cyber and cyber terrorism is. i think there will be more tons with regard to offense, defense, and putting together a network of people that are

involved. the secretary of the army has established a center, the army cyber center at west point that is going to focus on cyber, maybe you can get the director of that to come down next year to talk about it. but as we have looked at this, it is going to be different from the kinds of things i talked about. it is public with regard to governmental authorities and very much private industry are involved and all of us have an important part to play with regard to cyber defenses. right now a lot of the legislation is being worked out, i would point you to secretary petraeus' speech that he gave in new york city. it was one of the best

articulation that you have to have a partnership where you need a public/private partnership with both, the best we can bring from government and the best we can bring from private industry as well as the best practices from education. that is really where a lot of the cutting-edge developments are coming from. the other aspect of it is the threat is frequently not just from government agencies or terrorist agencies but private individuals. i'm sure you have studies the -- studied the individuals, could have hugely negative affects with regard to cyber.

>> in trying to understand what is going on in the world, i feel like the rider in the stampede. could you recommend -- [indiscernible] -- a few trusted souces they make -- may keep up with to understand issues you deal with? >> that is a good question. i think being informed in audiences like this is kind of people you bring in is important. i would put an advertisement for you our own stuff. if you go to our website you can sign up there and get the c.t.c. -- in fact, here is a picture. i don't have it.

it is our monthly paper that goes and analyzes the different areas of terrorism. it is one of the sources. there are some very good journalists that are out there that are covering these. most of the top journalists from the top newspapers, like "the new york times" and "the washington post" they cover these in the fair amount of detail on a current basis. and many of the others cover

this in more detail as well. there is a lot of information out there but with a little bit of scratching the surface you can get to more of the details. >> good evening. i would like you to speak about the counter terrorism strategies in somolia and the efforts in nigeria. thank you. >> well, the efforts in somalia -- yeah the question was how effective how are efforts been in the region of africa both in somalia and mali. they have been mixed. to get back to previous question, there is a magazine called "the prism" that google at the national defense university.

it had an article that detail this and i'm not an expert in this area so i will fall back on others. it has said that it has been mixed but has been -- by concentrating on building up some of the local forces in mali it has been helpful in terms of national forces. that has been less successful in somalia. beyond that i'm not an expert in that area in particular so i would not want to go too much past that. see if there is another question. >> you said we mine internet pages. how do we know we are not being played and fed misinformation?

>> good question. we're following these things reason to internet are we sure we're not being played? that is one of the reasons we do this in an academic and rigorous way. we publish all of our results. when we get downloaded documents we'll right a 150-page report then we will publish those documents in english and area big. we'll invite scholars to read that and see if we're getting the story right or if we're getting played and we have it wrong. it is the rigger that we put behind it. we have everybody looking at these sorts of things to see if

-- if we're just looking at a website, we don't write things on a daily basis or hitting a newspaper's person deadline. but we look at this and we want to make sure we don't take it out of context so we combine it with other literature written out there. could we get some of this stuff wrong? we possibly could but hopefully it will be picked up by others. if you make the assumption that the truth is on our side and more information is better and getting that information out there is critical, then you guard against being played so to speak. i would rather have the information get out there and told we're wrong and have the information corrected than not have the public discussion that you need on the issues. >> good evening. i am a studfent up the street. my question is on religion.

how big of a role does religion play in the overall aspect of terrorism. how big of a r ole has it played in the u.s.'s policy on counterterrorism? >>the question is what is the role of religion either from the terrorist perspective or the combating counterterrorism perspective. from the terrorist perspective what we have mostly found is that adherence from al qaeda broadly misinterpreted and taken extremist views and perverted islam as a religion to be able to coerce and otherwise control their followers in doing things

that are very much what the tenants of islam would say. we quoted a scholar and others that talked about the prohibition of killing innocent civilians. when they talk about the majority of people being killed by al qaeda are muslims contradicted the religion of islam and pointed out they were violating the tenet. so in general, helping to highlight the perversion of the religion in terms of the information we are doing has been helpful and that is what was done with the deadly vanguards report.

it identified the problems that al qaeda was having when it was killing civilians it violates what many of the other moderate, main stream muslim scholars were saying. with regard to the counterterrorism focus, it depends upon where you are. again, it is interesting because from the united states we have separation of church and state so it doesn't play in the things that we're doing. but you are in the government of the islamic republic of afghanistan which is in fact, an islamic republic. so islam is an important part of the host nation that we're in afghanistan and it does influence the policies of the nations we're working with. so understanding the religious

components both on the terrorist side and the counterterrorist side is particularly important. very good question. >> i wand to hear your comments about -- i want to hear your comments about what is -- -- we have media reports of friendly fire attacks. we have had an increasing number of green attacks on our forces. we have had evidence that has been present that the afghans are unreliable and by our standards they are untrainable. what was your experience?

>> good question. assessment of the insider threat and the afghan military. the insider threat is clearly one of the biggest challenges that we have faced. i think when people write the history of this and they go back, it started out with a very small element of insiders that were motivated by -- either people that were imitating afghan soldiers or afghan soldiers themselves. then the taliban realized this is a very effective tactic. so they infiltrated people and had them attack other afghan soldiers or they turned afghan soldiers to be able to attack the military.

it is clearly one of the most significant, negative developments over the last year. my recollection is there have been about 60 attacks over the last year. so many, many additional procedures, counter intelligence sort of things to weed out people and all the procedures that can be taken to protect soldiers are being taken. again, it is a combat environment which is extremely difficult to be able to deal with. now, with regard to the effectiveness of the afghan forces, by our standards, it is difficult to assess them at any measurable level. it is one of the things to guard against is the mirror image that will they have to be

as successful as nato forces or u.s. forces at any particular point. the afghan forces and when you look in detail at many of the reports, many of them with some assistance are able to conduct combat operations. a recent report in december talked about the varies readiness of afghan military units and afghan police units. both had expanded in capacity but they still have a long ways to go. they are out there tragically fighting and dying for their own country at a much, much larger rate than the u.s. many of them are doing a good job, but again, the results depend from unit to unit and area to area.

a couple of good examples when they had spectacular attacks, i was there in april of 2012 when there was a big attack. those were entirely done by the afghan special police units they are going responded and they responded very effectively killing 43 counterinsurgents. it got a lot of press but they did demonstrate they had the capacity. you have to look in detail at what is happening in each circumstance. i think we're about at the end of the time. sir? go ahead.

>> [indiscernible] [applause] >> thank you, sir. [applause] >> coming up, joe biden talks about the administration's review of federal gun laws followed by jay rockefeller's retirement announcement. tomorrow, governors on the east coast deliver their state of the state addresses. you will hear from in her cuomo, bob mcdonnell, daniel malloy, and chris christie starting at

1:05 on c-span. today joe biden met with representatives from the video- game industry. the vice president is leading an administration wide review of federal gun laws and has stated he will deliver recommendations to the president by tuesday. he was joined by eric holder and kathleen sibelius. this is just under 15 minutes. >> let me begin by thanking you all for being here. i know you came a long way and you have an awful lot on your plate. secondly, i want you to know what we have been doing. and maybe we can have a longer and larger conversation. as a consequence of what i think we would all agree, this

consequence for the american people unlike anything i have seen or felt, we have been around a long time, there have been a number of tragedies that have occurred, national catastrophes. but i have never seen any thing that has shocked the country or the american people like six and seven year-old kids being riddled with bullets in a classroom neighborhood in an area that was considered to be immune to this kind of behavior and done everything that seemed able to be done to protect children in that school. and so, how the president asked me, because i spent some much time on these issues, relating particularly to fire arms,

whether or not we would. and admittedly, it is quick end of the matter of less than a month, put together a set of proposals or directions that we could move the federal government and enhance the possibility, lessen the possibility that this will happen again. we know that is -- there is no silver bullet. there is no seat belt you can put on to ensure that we will not be in this circumstance again, but i ask the cabinet to come together, the attorney general, the board of education, health and human services. we know this is a complex problem and there is no single answer. knowrankly, we don't even

if some of the things people think back then is what is going on. i want you to know that you have not been singled out for help. but we have asked a lot of people. i want to give you a sense of the meetings we have had so far. we met with the law enforcement community that has one perspective. there is a wide range, we don't always agree. anything from weapons to preventative action that can be taken. we met with the medical community, the american academy of family physicians. at the american academy of neurologists, more than a dozen. we met with at-risk